I think staggering is the call here.

[probus]

Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to express @ghoul. Now that we know that, I can tell you that staggering is not the best choice of word. It works to a certain extent but it's unnatural, meaning that it isn't what a native speaker would use. We'd be far more likely to use @5jj's italicized version above.

 

[ghoul]

It would be more transparent as Perhaps I should split the message up and send the bits to you one at a time.

That would so gonna get me 'U-rlly-have-to-learn-to-sum-things-up-into-a-sentence-or-2-I-do-not-like-u-enough-to-read-all-thatd'.

It occurs to me that this may not be the right forum for you. Most of the people who respond here are interested in correct/appropriate standard English, and most of us are at least fifty. We can help people understand the informal language of younger people, but we can't tell you what younger people would actually say or write in casual speech or writing.

Fair enough; I've already changed my approach compared to a few weeks ago. I ask a good portion of my ungoogleable questions to native chat partners of my age and plan on just asking the ones they can't answer on this forum.

 

[ghoul]

Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to express @ghoul. Now that we know that, I can tell you that staggering is not the best choice of word. It works to a certain extent but it's unnatural, meaning that it isn't what a native speaker would use. We'd be far more likely to use @5jj's italicized version above.

Got you. How do you feel about leaving "and send the bits to you one at a time" out? I feel like that'd work because it's obvious what you're going to do with the message after splitting it up.

 

[probus]

The aim of usingenglish.com is to teach standard English that our learners can use in any context. Therefore chatlish forms such as gonna and lol are not welcome in this forum. Please do not use them here.

 

[teechar]

The aim of usingenglish.com is to teach standard English that our learners can use in any context.

I like Them's line

For our learners, please do not use the underlined. The correct word there is "their".

 

[jutfrank]

The excerpt I showed you was part of a larger discussion where I was attacking her idea of thinking I'm an autistic r-word which she bases on a bunch of behaviours I exhibited(?)/showed and I was explaining my thought process behind those and also pointing out how she was too quick to draw conclusions to argue(?) why I'm not an autistic r-word.

Okay.

I feel like discussing this technicality(?)/detail is too overwhelming for me.

Don't worry. We don't have to talk about your private matters. I just wanted a bit of context. I think we understand now. You were having a fight with a girl online.

How about you give your final opinion on whether "staggering" would theoretically work and feels right to use for what I intended it to mean, i.e. splitting the message up and send the bits to her over a period of time (as a means to make it less overwhelming to her)?

My final opinion is no, it's not a very good word choice because it doesn't make good sense. If the message consisted of several sentences, or several points, then yes, but since your comment consists of just two sentences, I don't think 'stagger' is the best word. Like some of the other members, I also think 'splitting it up' is much better to say what you mean.

 

[5jj]

For our learners, please do not use the underlined. The correct word there is "their".

In that context, their is incorrect. Given that Them is used as a name, Them's is awkward but correct.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, I was trying to be mildly humorous by using 'Them' as a name. That's why I wanted to enclose it in inverted commas, and also why I capitalised it. I didn't think it would cause such a problem.

 

[teechar]

I'm looking at post #32. How is "them" a name?

 

[ghoul]

My final opinion is no, it's not a very good word choice because it doesn't make good sense. If the message consisted of several sentences, or several points, then yes, but since your comment consists of just two sentences, I don't think 'stagger' is the best word. Like some of the other members, I also think 'splitting it up' is much better to say what you mean.

So you're saying that "stagger" feels more natural to use when the thing you want to stagger is rather larger?

 

[jutfrank]

So you're saying that "stagger" feels more natural to use when the thing you want to stagger is rather larger?

If there are more 'items' to be staggered, yes. For me two, isn't enough. If I concede that each of your four green lines counts individually as a whole thing, then 'stagger' is reasonable I think, yes.

 

[ghoul]

If there are more 'items' to be staggered, yes. For me two, isn't enough. If I concede that each of your four green lines counts individually as a whole thing, then 'stagger' is reasonable I think, yes.

What's the minimum number of pieces required to stagger something?

 

[5jj]

437?

 

[Skrej]

What's the minimum number of pieces required to stagger something?

That depends on one's personal tolerance, body weight, and natural proclivity for alcohol, but maybe like a dozen shots or strong mixed drinks, give or take?

 

[jutfrank]

437?

That's a staggering amount.